I thought nothing would persuade me to vote for Corbyn but that was pre Johnson. The sight of Rees Mogg going to see the Queen to prorogue parliament was the last straw The best chance of ridding ourselves of this clique is to vote Corbyn (except in certain constituencies). He's bloody awful but at least he has principles and he's removable.
I’m with @ydoethur on this - they are both beyond the pale.
The point is Corbyn has no principles either. He proved that over welfare cuts. He's Johnson with a beard.
There is no sense in voting against someone by voting for someone just as bad, if not worse. I will be making a positive choice to vote for someone in November and that won't be either Blue or Red. I may not be successful in giving my choice the seat, but better that than to continue this populist disaster with different haircuts.
That comment last night was entirely deliberate, but nobody seemed to spot it.
In or out of the EU?
Out.
Because Johnson is about to make a huge electoral miscalculation as well - he expects to be rewarded for doing something. He thinks if he takes us out, grateful Leavers will flock to him.
Never works. Just ask Winston Churchill...
It's why Boris needs an election in October.
I agree. Why would Labour enable Johnson to have an election in October ?
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
It clearly wasn't else we'd have a solution now.
Unless you have a time machine, the two years is past. In my experience time past is not much use in solving present problems.
Naive of him, everyone in France hid the resistance in their cellar. In retrospect.
There was a book recently published which said (I paraphrase) that the French Resistance didn't really do much for the war effort but was hugely important for the national psyche.
I'm appalled by Ruth Davidson's remarks. "referenda"? Ye Gods. It is always referendums.
What I worked at BBC News in the late 70s we had two referendums going on in Scotland and Wales and the dictat came from high - the plural was referenda. At the time I was Duty Editor for Radios 1 and 2 news and felt almost embarrassed by this for our audiences. We used to get into all sorts of verbal contortions to avoid "referendums" but we never used the form referenda
On a similar note, Dear the United Kingdom, it’s coup d’État, with a capital E with an accent aigu, please.
#PedantryCorner
I thought accents over capital letters were entirely optional in written French?
Thats what I was taught too - and its certainly a widespread practice - but as a Francophile Republican TSE has the Academie FrancaiseAcadémie Française on his side.
I only learned French so I could mock the fromage manger des singes de reddition in their own language.
One of the saddest things about Brexit is that the English language will no longer be the lingua franca of the EU.
Won't the Maltese and the Irish have something to say about that?
UK + Ireland + Malta ~= 73m
France + Luxembourg + Walloonia ~= 71.5m
Ireland + Malta ~= 5.5m
Some Wallons speak German but there are 100,000+ French speaking Italians.
And quite a lot who speak German, around 300,000 in and around Bolsano.
There are still some German native speakers in South Jutland as well as a few thousand Danish speakers on the other side of the border, not to mention Luxembourg, Czech Republic and Slovakia - so I am guessing German is the most spoken native language in the EU
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
This sanctimonious, sneering drivel is not doing you any favours
Johnson's chances of getting a deal through the Commons were always pretty slim - after yesterday they must be nil. Indeed it's hard to see how he can ever win a Commons vote on anything controversial under any circumstances.
Unless the alternative is no deal.
But I'm not sure the choice can be forced in that way - the choice before the HoC will always be a deal, no deal or revoke (or possibly a further extension, depending on the EU's stance). This will always be the case right up until 10.59pm on 31 October.
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.
Choose what?
MPs need to do something rather than constantly voting against everything.
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
This sanctimonious, sneering drivel is not doing you any favours
Well if things were in such a perilous state, why didn’t MPs cancel summer recess as well?
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.
Choose what?
MPs need to do something rather than constantly voting against everything.
They haven’t been given the chance. Even in the indicative votes, the government did not properly engage. You need to give the house free votes otherwise it will always be the house voting against the government. That’s how our parliament works.
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
That’s my view, too. To force a choice, a final decision.
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
This sanctimonious, sneering drivel is not doing you any favours
Well if things were in such a perilous state, why didn’t MPs cancel summer recess as well?
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.
Choose what?
MPs need to do something rather than constantly voting against everything.
They haven’t been given the chance. Even in the indicative votes, the government did not properly engage. You need to give the house free votes otherwise it will always be the house voting against the government. That’s how our parliament works.
They had three chances to vote for May's Shit Deal.
Ironically, a year on Labour will end up voting for something very close to it by 31st October. Having swapped loser May for big winner Boris in the process. Whilst clinging on to Corbyn.
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
I'm appalled by Ruth Davidson's remarks. "referenda"? Ye Gods. It is always referendums.
What I worked at BBC News in the late 70s we had two referendums going on in Scotland and Wales and the dictat came from high - the plural was referenda. At the time I was Duty Editor for Radios 1 and 2 news and felt almost embarrassed by this for our audiences. We used to get into all sorts of verbal contortions to avoid "referendums" but we never used the form referenda
Stadia is the plural of stadium, media is the plural of medium, quanta is the plural of quantum. Referenda is the plural of referendum. I am trying desperately not to use the word "labia" here...
The word referendum is derived from the Latin word referendum, which means what must be referred. Some believe that the plural form is referenda, following the Latin rules of pluralization. This is incorrect. Referendum is now considered an English word and follows the English rules of pluralization, simply adding an s to form the plural as in referendums.
Referendums is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues
It is closely related to agenda, "those matters which must be driven forward", from ago, to drive (cattle); and memorandum, "that matter which must be remembered", from memoro, to call to mind, corrigenda, from rego, to rule, make straight, those things which must be made straight (corrected), etc.
I went thru this the last time this happened. The source you cite (last time it was the Spectator and Sunil was doing the citing) rely on a two-stage process - firstly translate into English as a singular noun, then apply English rules to construct the plural as if it were an English singular. But I contend it would be more accurate if you construct the Latin plural then translate into English. Given the existence of other words, this is simpler and more consistent with English. Or, to consider your source directly, they are simply wrong when they say "This is incorrect".
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.
Choose what?
MPs need to do something rather than constantly voting against everything.
They haven’t been given the chance. Even in the indicative votes, the government did not properly engage. You need to give the house free votes otherwise it will always be the house voting against the government. That’s how our parliament works.
They had three chances to vote for May's Shit Deal.
Ironically, a year on Labour will end up voting for something very close to it by 31st October. Having swapped loser May for big winner Boris in the process. Whilst clinging on to Corbyn.
@HYUFD will conveniently ignore this as it does not suit his agenda.
29% for May's Deal as a reasonable compromise is actually higher than soft Brexit on that poll, Remain is almost as divisive as No Deal is
You are turning into a parody of yourself. You do realise other people can read the chart for themselves? 54% is higher than 44%. 49% is not "almost" the same as 41%. And the chart shows figures for "acceptable compromise" not "reasonable compromise".
If you're going to lie about everything, probably best not to lie so obviously.
I shouldn't worry, HYUFD is going to be doing a passable expression of an oozlum bird sometime between now and the end of October,.
(For those unfamiliar with the mythical creature, when startled, it will take off and fly around in ever-decreasing circles until it manages to fly up itself and disappear completely!
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
This sanctimonious, sneering drivel is not doing you any favours
Well if things were in such a perilous state, why didn’t MPs cancel summer recess as well?
That’s not relevant.
How is it not? This whole furore has been about a loss of sitting days.
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
Yes, *his* purity, but what about the Tory Party's? Which would be the lesser evil for them? Disastrous either way, I should think.
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
This sanctimonious, sneering drivel is not doing you any favours
Well if things were in such a perilous state, why didn’t MPs cancel summer recess as well?
That’s not relevant.
How is it not? This whole furore has been about a loss of sitting days.
What is this really about? If it’s just a normal constitutional procedure then there’s no need for it to be so long. If it’s an act to teach MPs a lesson, then at least be honest about it.
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
he can't do that either because if they go for revoke he will be slaughtered by Farage.
It is the/a/some kind of deal.
And he will stand there and say "do you want some?"
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.
Choose what?
MPs need to do something rather than constantly voting against everything.
They haven’t been given the chance. Even in the indicative votes, the government did not properly engage. You need to give the house free votes otherwise it will always be the house voting against the government. That’s how our parliament works.
They had three chances to vote for May's Shit Deal.
Ironically, a year on Labour will end up voting for something very close to it by 31st October. Having swapped loser May for big winner Boris in the process. Whilst clinging on to Corbyn.
It wasn't a shit deal but to expect any more enlightenment from you than from Mark Francois I appreciate is a big ask.
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal
Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
This sanctimonious, sneering drivel is not doing you any favours
Well if things were in such a perilous state, why didn’t MPs cancel summer recess as well?
That’s not relevant.
How is it not? This whole furore has been about a loss of sitting days.
Its not even about sitting days its about Prorogue of Parliament for longest period since .....
Recess day is not same as Prorogue day as MPs get to agree the former not the Latter
I'm appalled by Ruth Davidson's remarks. "referenda"? Ye Gods. It is always referendums.
What I worked at BBC News in the late 70s we had two referendums going on in Scotland and Wales and the dictat came from high - the plural was referenda. At the time I was Duty Editor for Radios 1 and 2 news and felt almost embarrassed by this for our audiences. We used to get into all sorts of verbal contortions to avoid "referendums" but we never used the form referenda
Stadia is the plural of stadium, media is the plural of medium, quanta is the plural of quantum. Referenda is the plural of referendum. I am trying desperately not to use the word "labia" here...
The word referendum is derived from the Latin word referendum, which means what must be referred. Some believe that the plural form is referenda, following the Latin rules of pluralization. This is incorrect. Referendum is now considered an English word and follows the English rules of pluralization, simply adding an s to form the plural as in referendums.
Referendums is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues
It is closely related to agenda, "those matters which must be driven forward", from ago, to drive (cattle); and memorandum, "that matter which must be remembered", from memoro, to call to mind, corrigenda, from rego, to rule, make straight, those things which must be made straight (corrected), etc.
I went thru this the last time this happened. The source you cite (last time it was the Spectator and Sunil was doing the citing) rely on a two-stage process - firstly translate into English as a singular noun, then apply English rules to construct the plural as if it were an English singular. But I contend it would be more accurate if you construct the Latin plural then translate into English. Given the existence of other words, this is simpler and more consistent with English. Or, to consider your source directly, they are simply wrong when they say "This is incorrect".
Or more realistically, look at actual English usage. The two forms have been used regularly and interchangeably for quite some time.
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Yes. Three plus the Sovereign is a quorum.
No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.
Blimey. I am sure Jezza's new written constitution will fix that.
The Privy Council will be replaced by a stage at Glastonbury
Which would be more nonsensical than the current arrangements because...?
...people don't chant "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" at the Privy Council?
Better Class As at the Privy Council?
They don't allow Radiohead at the Privy Council?
That's a convincing argument for the current constitutional arrangements. Radiohead are the one thing worse than Jacob Rees Mogg.
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
he can't do that either because if they go for revoke he will be slaughtered by Farage.
It is the/a/some kind of deal.
And he will stand there and say "do you want some?"
Given the choice between leaving with No Deal and leaving with a version of May's Deal, if Johnson doesn't choose No Deal, Farage will slaughter him.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
The USA lacks a monarch and is full of republicans. Whatever anyone thinks of Americans, their patriotism rarely in doubt.
A monarch is not required to be a patriot.
Would you view an American citizen who campaigned for the Queen to be crowned as Queen of the US as a patriot?
Indeed. That was my point but I used Kim Jong-Un as an example.
so what else is on the Topping Requirements for someone else to be allowed to say they love Britain? So far all I know is nobody is allowed to say that they think we should end the monarchy. But what about other constitutional changes eg: wanting to end FPTP for elections? wanting to get rid of the unelected House of Lords? wanting to disestablish the CofE?
or other symbolic changes: wanting to change the national flag? wanting to change the national anthem? wanting to change the colour of the passports?
I'm really curious what would be on your list, or is it solely a monarchy fetish?
And does it apply to other countries with the Queen as head of state eg: are Australians who want the Queen to no longer be head of state of Australia allowed to say they love Australia?
I think one of the most important things at the moment is that Johnson clearly isn't afraid of an early election, whereas Theresa May and most of her cabinet definitely didn't want one for as long as possible.
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.
And it is now critical that the same MPs are allowed to sit for four additional days?
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Vote Leave said we could Leave without triggering Article 50.
Murdo Fraser To Win 3/1 Jackson Carlaw To Win 4/1 Adam Tomkins To Win 6/1 Donald Cameron To Win 8/1 Alister Jack To Win 12/1 Annie Wells To Win 12/1 Maurice Golden To Win 12/1 Rachel Hamilton To Win 12/1 Colin Clark To Win 20/1 John Lamont To Win 20/1 Stephen Kerr To Win 20/1 Ross Thomson To Win 25/1
Thanks. Who should the SCONs pick and who do you think they will pick?
I am wrong person to ask, I don't think if you put them all together that you would get a person suitable to run a bath. They are useless like Fraser , Tompkins, Carlaw , dodgy like Thomson and invisible like most of the rest. DAVIDL would be best person as our resident Scottish Tory, I believe the only Tory in the village.
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.
Choose what?
MPs need to do something rather than constantly voting against everything.
They haven’t been given the chance. Even in the indicative votes, the government did not properly engage. You need to give the house free votes otherwise it will always be the house voting against the government. That’s how our parliament works.
They had three chances to vote for May's Shit Deal.
Ironically, a year on Labour will end up voting for something very close to it by 31st October. Having swapped loser May for big winner Boris in the process. Whilst clinging on to Corbyn.
It wasn't a shit deal but to expect any more enlightenment from you than from Mark Francois I appreciate is a big ask.
It was neither here nor there whether the deal was shit or not, it ticked the box of leaving the EU and respecting the referendum result. The moment this chaos unfolded was when MPs didn’t just sign it off as a matter of course.
Some refused in order to get no deal, others in order to get no Brexit.
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
Bullshit. Those enacting Article 50 were in the perfect position to know what it entailed and the potential outcomes. If they claim they didn't then they are unfit to be in their jobs.
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.
And it is now critical that the same MPs are allowed to sit for four additional days?
I’m not going to engage with you if you keep purposely lying. It is not 4 days. What a complete and utter fabrication.
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
I am no lawyer and will not pretend to be one, but it is a constitutional argument, based on the supreme court ruling in the Miller case. Existing citizens rights that are part of belonging to the EU can only be taken away by parliament, not the government.
I shall leave it up to the judges whether that is right or not, it would be helpful if it is.
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Vote Leave said we could Leave without triggering Article 50.
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal
Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.
I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.
And it is now critical that the same MPs are allowed to sit for four additional days?
I’m not going to engage with you if you keep purposely lying. It is not 4 days. What a complete and utter fabrication.
Just questioning the wisdom of MPs if they can’t interpret a single paragraph of an EU treaty.
What is more likely is your assertion that they had no idea what A50 involved is wrong.
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
I am no lawyer and will not pretend to be one, but it is a constitutional argument, based on the supreme court ruling in the Miller case. Existing citizens rights that are part of belonging to the EU can only be taken away by parliament, not the government.
I shall leave it up to the judges whether that is right or not, it would be helpful if it is.
The result of Miller was the A50 notification act, in which Parliament allowed the government to take away said rights by serving the notification.
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.
Choose what?
To leave or revoke or to have a second referendum if revoking is just too undemocratic for you. Long winded speeches persuade no one, change no minds and simply waste time. If an MP wants to stop no deal they may need to support a VoNC. Once again, choose. Enough emoting.
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal
Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.
I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal
Enough of a fudge for Boris Johnson not to blow his credibility by trying to ram it through the House of Commons?
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Vote Leave said we could Leave without triggering Article 50.
Outdated legal advice, no doubt
VL also said it would be easy peasy to get a deal, and that No Deal was a million to one against, so not exactly high on credibility.
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal
Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.
I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal
Enough of a fudge for Boris Johnson not to blow his credibility by trying to ram it through the House of Commons?
He has no need to. Boris can offer the HOC a choice and it is their decision
Murdo Fraser To Win 3/1 Jackson Carlaw To Win 4/1 Adam Tomkins To Win 6/1 Donald Cameron To Win 8/1 Alister Jack To Win 12/1 Annie Wells To Win 12/1 Maurice Golden To Win 12/1 Rachel Hamilton To Win 12/1 Colin Clark To Win 20/1 John Lamont To Win 20/1 Stephen Kerr To Win 20/1 Ross Thomson To Win 25/1
Thanks. Who should the SCONs pick and who do you think they will pick?
I am wrong person to ask, I don't think if you put them all together that you would get a person suitable to run a bath. They are useless like Fraser , Tompkins, Carlaw , dodgy like Thomson and invisible like most of the rest. DAVIDL would be best person as our resident Scottish Tory, I believe the only Tory in the village.
I don’t think he’s applying for the post - though they could do worse.
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal
Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.
I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal
Enough of a fudge for Boris Johnson not to blow his credibility by trying to ram it through the House of Commons?
Which way do you think Labour would vote if Johnson contrived a situation where the only options were deal or no deal?
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal
Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.
I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal
Enough of a fudge for Boris Johnson not to blow his credibility by trying to ram it through the House of Commons?
He has no need to. Boris can offer the HOC a choice and it is their decision
And which decision do you think would be least damaging a) to the Country and b) to the Conservative Party?
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
Bullshit. Those enacting Article 50 were in the perfect position to know what it entailed and the potential outcomes. If they claim they didn't then they are unfit to be in their jobs.
People, including MPs, are entitled to change their minds Richard as the facts change. If they are so dogmatic they are unable to have humility and admit a mistake, then they are most definitely unfit for their jobs. From the poll on this header it would suggest that there are quite a lot of people who now realise it was a mistake, and also want to change their minds.
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal
Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.
I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal
Enough of a fudge for Boris Johnson not to blow his credibility by trying to ram it through the House of Commons?
He has no need to. Boris can offer the HOC a choice and it is their decision
And which decision do you think would be least damaging a) to the Country and b) to the Conservative Party?
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
I am no lawyer and will not pretend to be one, but it is a constitutional argument, based on the supreme court ruling in the Miller case. Existing citizens rights that are part of belonging to the EU can only be taken away by parliament, not the government.
I shall leave it up to the judges whether that is right or not, it would be helpful if it is.
The result of Miller was the A50 notification act, in which Parliament allowed the government to take away said rights by serving the notification.
I have no interest in arguing the legal merits of his argument, I shall leave it to the judges who are better informed than either of us on such technicalities. Both sides are stretching conventions and the law to try and create/block no-deal. I wish there was a more consensual approach from all senior politicians but we are where we are, and I shall cheer on the anti no dealers from the sidelines.
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.
This is not some obscure regulation about deer feed in national parks or the like, Article 50 has had a centrality to proceedings since Lisbon was signed (you know the one we weren't allowed to vote down because G Brown ratted on a manifesto promise). If MP's really did not read up on what Article 50 meant and its workings on the greatest question for 50 years, why on God's earth should we entrust them with any time at all to screw things up further?
If they really didn't know about Article 50 they are clueless muppets, not fit for purpose, and should not use cutlery unsupervised.
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
I am no lawyer and will not pretend to be one, but it is a constitutional argument, based on the supreme court ruling in the Miller case. Existing citizens rights that are part of belonging to the EU can only be taken away by parliament, not the government.
I shall leave it up to the judges whether that is right or not, it would be helpful if it is.
The result of Miller was the A50 notification act, in which Parliament allowed the government to take away said rights by serving the notification.
I have no interest in arguing the legal merits of his argument, I shall leave it to the judges who are better informed than either of us on such technicalities. Both sides are stretching conventions and the law to try and create/block no-deal. I wish there was a more consensual approach from all senior politicians but we are where we are, and I shall cheer on the anti no dealers from the sidelines.
At any point since A50 was triggered it has been in the gift of parliament to revoke it.
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal
Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.
I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal
Enough of a fudge for Boris Johnson not to blow his credibility by trying to ram it through the House of Commons?
Which way do you think Labour would vote if Johnson contrived a situation where the only options were deal or no deal?
It's not possible for him to contrive that situation. No Deal can be averted even on October 31st.
Cricket: -£12.58 | Football: -£24.87 | Motor Sport: £6.79 | Politics: -£28.24 Total P&L: -£58.90
Cricket: £6.29 | Politics: £0.95 Total P&L: £7.24 - I'm a really incredibly small staker outside of politics
All my efforts on the horses over last month have resulted in an overall profit of £4.87. Like you I do not bet high stakes but have fair amount of bets mainly at weekends.
I'm appalled by Ruth Davidson's remarks. "referenda"? Ye Gods. It is always referendums.
What I worked at BBC News in the late 70s we had two referendums going on in Scotland and Wales and the dictat came from high - the plural was referenda. At the time I was Duty Editor for Radios 1 and 2 news and felt almost embarrassed by this for our audiences. We used to get into all sorts of verbal contortions to avoid "referendums" but we never used the form referenda
Stadia is the plural of stadium, media is the plural of medium, quanta is the plural of quantum. Referenda is the plural of referendum. I am trying desperately not to use the word "labia" here...
The word referendum is derived from the Latin word referendum, which means what must be referred. Some believe that the plural form is referenda, following the Latin rules of pluralization. This is incorrect. Referendum is now considered an English word and follows the English rules of pluralization, simply adding an s to form the plural as in referendums.
Referendums is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues
It is closely related to agenda, "those matters which must be driven forward", from ago, to drive (cattle); and memorandum, "that matter which must be remembered", from memoro, to call to mind, corrigenda, from rego, to rule, make straight, those things which must be made straight (corrected), etc.
I went thru this the last time this happened. The source you cite (last time it was the Spectator and Sunil was doing the citing) rely on a two-stage process - firstly translate into English as a singular noun, then apply English rules to construct the plural as if it were an English singular. But I contend it would be more accurate if you construct the Latin plural then translate into English. Given the existence of other words, this is simpler and more consistent with English. Or, to consider your source directly, they are simply wrong when they say "This is incorrect".
if we stuck to importing words from Germanic languages we wouldn't have all this tortuous nonsense - "folkeafstemninger" anyone?
Also somebody asked a while back if my avatar was my own phd certificate - it might be my DPhil but I can't remember - I only use it to remind myself of my favourite city in England and the enjoyment I had living there.
I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.
Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.
This is not some obscure regulation about deer feed in national parks or the like, Article 50 has had a centrality to proceedings since Lisbon was signed (you know the one we weren't allowed to vote down because G Brown ratted on a manifesto promise). If MP's really did not read up on what Article 50 meant and its workings on the greatest question for 50 years, why on God's earth should we entrust them with any time at all to screw things up further?
If they really didn't know about Article 50 they are clueless muppets, not fit for purpose, and should not use cutlery unsupervised.
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
I am no lawyer and will not pretend to be one, but it is a constitutional argument, based on the supreme court ruling in the Miller case. Existing citizens rights that are part of belonging to the EU can only be taken away by parliament, not the government.
I shall leave it up to the judges whether that is right or not, it would be helpful if it is.
The result of Miller was the A50 notification act, in which Parliament allowed the government to take away said rights by serving the notification.
I have no interest in arguing the legal merits of his argument, I shall leave it to the judges who are better informed than either of us on such technicalities. Both sides are stretching conventions and the law to try and create/block no-deal. I wish there was a more consensual approach from all senior politicians but we are where we are, and I shall cheer on the anti no dealers from the sidelines.
At any point since A50 was triggered it has been in the gift of parliament to revoke it.
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.
This is not some obscure regulation about deer feed in national parks or the like, Article 50 has had a centrality to proceedings since Lisbon was signed (you know the one we weren't allowed to vote down because G Brown ratted on a manifesto promise). If MP's really did not read up on what Article 50 meant and its workings on the greatest question for 50 years, why on God's earth should we entrust them with any time at all to screw things up further?
If they really didn't know about Article 50 they are clueless muppets, not fit for purpose, and should not use cutlery unsupervised.
I was also naive enough to think we had a sensible, grown up government who would produce a compromise to unite the nation.
Instead we’re left with a choice of shooting ourselves in the foot, or shooting ourselves in the head.
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal
Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.
I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal
Enough of a fudge for Boris Johnson not to blow his credibility by trying to ram it through the House of Commons?
He has no need to. Boris can offer the HOC a choice and it is their decision
And which decision do you think would be least damaging a) to the Country and b) to the Conservative Party?
Murdo Fraser To Win 3/1 Jackson Carlaw To Win 4/1 Adam Tomkins To Win 6/1 Donald Cameron To Win 8/1 Alister Jack To Win 12/1 Annie Wells To Win 12/1 Maurice Golden To Win 12/1 Rachel Hamilton To Win 12/1 Colin Clark To Win 20/1 John Lamont To Win 20/1 Stephen Kerr To Win 20/1 Ross Thomson To Win 25/1
Thanks. Who should the SCONs pick and who do you think they will pick?
I am wrong person to ask, I don't think if you put them all together that you would get a person suitable to run a bath. They are useless like Fraser , Tompkins, Carlaw , dodgy like Thomson and invisible like most of the rest. DAVIDL would be best person as our resident Scottish Tory, I believe the only Tory in the village.
I don’t think he’s applying for the post - though they could do worse.
He would be miles ahead of that bunch of turkeys for sure.
I think one of the most important things at the moment is that Johnson clearly isn't afraid of an early election, whereas Theresa May and most of her cabinet definitely didn't want one for as long as possible.
"isn't afraid of" ------> "is desperately seeking to engineer"
Everyone except the Conservatives has an interest in seeing him stay in office until November without Britain leaving the EU. Why would they help him escape this fate?
Q: What happens if he resigns? Potentially advising HM that there is no one that can command the Commons?
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal
Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.
I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal
Enough of a fudge for Boris Johnson not to blow his credibility by trying to ram it through the House of Commons?
Which way do you think Labour would vote if Johnson contrived a situation where the only options were deal or no deal?
It's not possible for him to contrive that situation. No Deal can be averted even on October 31st.
Can it? I thought any request of extension or revocation required the executive’s cooperation.
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
he can't do that either because if they go for revoke he will be slaughtered by Farage.
It is the/a/some kind of deal.
And he will stand there and say "do you want some?"
Given the choice between leaving with No Deal and leaving with a version of May's Deal, if Johnson doesn't choose No Deal, Farage will slaughter him.
Quite. Anyway it's very unlikely Johnson could get any form of deal, whatever the terms, through the HoC. If he moves toward a softer deal to attract Labour he will lose the ERG and DUP and turbo-charge the BXP. And if he moves toward a harder deal he will lose some Tory moderates and gain nobody.
There is no available deal that Parliament will accept. This has been true since 24 June 2016 and there is no prospect of it ceasing to be true this side of an election or referendum.
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.
This is not some obscure regulation about deer feed in national parks or the like, Article 50 has had a centrality to proceedings since Lisbon was signed (you know the one we weren't allowed to vote down because G Brown ratted on a manifesto promise). If MP's really did not read up on what Article 50 meant and its workings on the greatest question for 50 years, why on God's earth should we entrust them with any time at all to screw things up further?
If they really didn't know about Article 50 they are clueless muppets, not fit for purpose, and should not use cutlery unsupervised.
Blair not Brown.
I stand corrected on the personnel, but the point stands.
The referendum that never was, that could've inoculated the system and enforced some reform on the EU. Olympic standard idiocy not to have held it as promised.
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.
This is not some obscure regulation about deer feed in national parks or the like, Article 50 has had a centrality to proceedings since Lisbon was signed (you know the one we weren't allowed to vote down because G Brown ratted on a manifesto promise). If MP's really did not read up on what Article 50 meant and its workings on the greatest question for 50 years, why on God's earth should we entrust them with any time at all to screw things up further?
If they really didn't know about Article 50 they are clueless muppets, not fit for purpose, and should not use cutlery unsupervised.
Blair not Brown.
The Lisbon Treaty was signed by Gordon Brown in October 2007 without first having the Referendum as promised in the Labour Party Manifesto.*. The un-amended Treaty of Lisbon was deposited in the Commons on Dec 17th 2007. Most of the MPs had gone home for Christmas by then as parliament recessed the next day.
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.
This is not some obscure regulation about deer feed in national parks or the like, Article 50 has had a centrality to proceedings since Lisbon was signed (you know the one we weren't allowed to vote down because G Brown ratted on a manifesto promise). If MP's really did not read up on what Article 50 meant and its workings on the greatest question for 50 years, why on God's earth should we entrust them with any time at all to screw things up further?
If they really didn't know about Article 50 they are clueless muppets, not fit for purpose, and should not use cutlery unsupervised.
I was also naive enough to think we had a sensible, grown up government who would produce a compromise to unite the nation.
Instead we’re left with a choice of shooting ourselves in the foot, or shooting ourselves in the head.
F*ck me, yeah?
Which part of May's withdrawal agreement do you object to ?
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
Bullshit. Those enacting Article 50 were in the perfect position to know what it entailed and the potential outcomes. If they claim they didn't then they are unfit to be in their jobs.
People, including MPs, are entitled to change their minds Richard as the facts change. If they are so dogmatic they are unable to have humility and admit a mistake, then they are most definitely unfit for their jobs. From the poll on this header it would suggest that there are quite a lot of people who now realise it was a mistake, and also want to change their minds.
I wasn't arguing that. I was calling out Gallowgate for the ridiculous idea that the 650 MPs who voted on whether or not to invoke Article 50 didn't know what they were voting for. It is a facile and fraudulent argument which implies that Parliamentary Sovereignty is a bankrupt concept. After all if MPs are so dumb they didn't understand something as straight forward as Article 50 then Boris should do us all a favour and shut down Psrliament permanently..
I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.
Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains
LDs plummeting since Tory Swinson started making TV appearances. Next GE is Tory No Deal or Jezza.
Murdo Fraser To Win 3/1 Jackson Carlaw To Win 4/1 Adam Tomkins To Win 6/1 Donald Cameron To Win 8/1 Alister Jack To Win 12/1 Annie Wells To Win 12/1 Maurice Golden To Win 12/1 Rachel Hamilton To Win 12/1 Colin Clark To Win 20/1 John Lamont To Win 20/1 Stephen Kerr To Win 20/1 Ross Thomson To Win 25/1
Thanks. Who should the SCONs pick and who do you think they will pick?
I am wrong person to ask, I don't think if you put them all together that you would get a person suitable to run a bath. They are useless like Fraser , Tompkins, Carlaw , dodgy like Thomson and invisible like most of the rest. DAVIDL would be best person as our resident Scottish Tory, I believe the only Tory in the village.
I don’t think he’s applying for the post - though they could do worse.
I am not eligible. Or interested. I am very disappointed that Ruth is standing down although I understand her reasons. Hopefully she will come back one day. I don't really know any of the other candidates particularly well. I think that Murdo is the most likely but given he has the shortest odds its not particularly attractive.
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.
This is not some obscure regulation about deer feed in national parks or the like, Article 50 has had a centrality to proceedings since Lisbon was signed (you know the one we weren't allowed to vote down because G Brown ratted on a manifesto promise). If MP's really did not read up on what Article 50 meant and its workings on the greatest question for 50 years, why on God's earth should we entrust them with any time at all to screw things up further?
If they really didn't know about Article 50 they are clueless muppets, not fit for purpose, and should not use cutlery unsupervised.
I was also naive enough to think we had a sensible, grown up government who would produce a compromise to unite the nation.
Instead we’re left with a choice of shooting ourselves in the foot, or shooting ourselves in the head.
F*ck me, yeah?
Which part of May's withdrawal agreement do you object to ?
The part where it takes us out of the Single Market.
I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.
Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains
LDs plummeting since Tory Swinson started making TV appearances. Next GE is Tory No Deal or Jezza.
The next GE will be post 31st October
The mps are too scared to vonc next week which is the correct and proper thing to do
I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.
Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains
I conclude slightly differently. They don't want to VONC their own government because they will lose the whip and be imminently unemployed. If they merely break a 3 line whip, they can carry on as Con MPs as it is hard for the activists to deselect them.
Everyone except the Conservatives has an interest in seeing him stay in office until November without Britain leaving the EU. Why would they help him escape this fate?
Q: What happens if he resigns? Potentially advising HM that there is no one that can command the Commons?
He can resign. His views on the lack of a successor would no doubt be taken into account by HRH but she would need to call for someone, and then test that out.
That advice in any case would be quite irresponsible. There manifestly are people who could for the time being command the confidence of the House of Commons if called upon (eg Harriet Harman, Ken Clarke). The only question is whether other more contentious candidates, such as Jeremy Corbyn, need to be tested out first.
I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.
Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains
I conclude slightly differently. They don't want to VONC their own government because they will lose the whip and be imminently unemployed. If they merely break a 3 line whip, they can carry on as Con MPs as it is hard for the activists to deselect them.
Comments
Why would Labour enable Johnson to have an election in October ?
Unless you have a time machine, the two years is past. In my experience time past is not much use in solving present problems.
Of course -£28.24 on Politics is an instant ban from PB!
10 or 12 Tory rebels, who will (presumably) confirm they will not be standing again. Plus most of the opposition benches and possibly the DUP.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Ironically, a year on Labour will end up voting for something very close to it by 31st October. Having swapped loser May for big winner Boris in the process. Whilst clinging on to Corbyn.
(For those unfamiliar with the mythical creature, when startled, it will take off and fly around in ever-decreasing circles until it manages to fly up itself and disappear completely!
If it’s just a normal constitutional procedure then there’s no need for it to be so long.
If it’s an act to teach MPs a lesson, then at least be honest about it.
It is the/a/some kind of deal.
And he will stand there and say "do you want some?"
Recess day is not same as Prorogue day as MPs get to agree the former not the Latter
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
So far all I know is nobody is allowed to say that they think we should end the monarchy. But what about other constitutional changes eg:
wanting to end FPTP for elections?
wanting to get rid of the unelected House of Lords?
wanting to disestablish the CofE?
or other symbolic changes:
wanting to change the national flag?
wanting to change the national anthem?
wanting to change the colour of the passports?
I'm really curious what would be on your list, or is it solely a monarchy fetish?
And does it apply to other countries with the Queen as head of state eg:
are Australians who want the Queen to no longer be head of state of Australia allowed to say they love Australia?
DAVIDL would be best person as our resident Scottish Tory, I believe the only Tory in the village.
Some refused in order to get no deal, others in order to get no Brexit.
I shall leave it up to the judges whether that is right or not, it would be helpful if it is.
What is more likely is your assertion that they had no idea what A50 involved is wrong.
If they really didn't know about Article 50 they are clueless muppets, not fit for purpose, and should not use cutlery unsupervised.
Also somebody asked a while back if my avatar was my own phd certificate - it might be my DPhil but I can't remember - I only use it to remind myself of my favourite city in England and the enjoyment I had living there.
Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains
Instead we’re left with a choice of shooting ourselves in the foot, or shooting ourselves in the head.
F*ck me, yeah?
There is no available deal that Parliament will accept. This has been true since 24 June 2016 and there is no prospect of it ceasing to be true this side of an election or referendum.
The referendum that never was, that could've inoculated the system and enforced some reform on the EU. Olympic standard idiocy not to have held it as promised.
http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2013-013-how-the-lisbon-treaty-was-voted-through/
The mps are too scared to vonc next week which is the correct and proper thing to do
He can resign. His views on the lack of a successor would no doubt be taken into account by HRH but she would need to call for someone, and then test that out.
That advice in any case would be quite irresponsible. There manifestly are people who could for the time being command the confidence of the House of Commons if called upon (eg Harriet Harman, Ken Clarke). The only question is whether other more contentious candidates, such as Jeremy Corbyn, need to be tested out first.